It's no longer a binary star system - you're really going to slap on pop-culture bullshit terminology to this ?

Why no "binary star system" isn't adequate to describe a system where the two stars are actually overlapping. Kinda like how we have a word for "square" even though you could just keep calling them quadrilaterals and make no mention of the unique properties. And while the science-y term is "common envelope", and "dual-core" is a joke, it's actually a rather clever and apt one. See, it's two stellar "cores" within one conjoined surface. Kinda like having two processor "cores" on one piece of silicon. Geddit?

Well, something has to explain this shell formation. I am not fond of this two star system altho stars 10x heavier than the sun seem to have this arrangement always. (Altho only 10% of all stars are heavier than Sol.) RARE EARTH , peter ward and d brownlee p 42 says Sol has 25% more heavy elements than other nearby typical stars of similar mass. G Gonzalez says Sol is quite rare in being so rich in metals. p 43. Metal production depends on big mass. So something is not right about the just-so story of Sol. You have the Oort shell. You have Proxima Centauri that is sort-of connected to the Centauri A&B when it is not bumping into the Oort shell. Then you have the perfectly round Oort shell mimicking the perfectly round Sol.

Another explanation is that the dwarf is actually a magnetar whose field controls the planetary nebula explosion into a perfect sphere. It sounds like what the article is suggesting but not saying so directly. As the only way we understand magnetism is imparted is by being immersed into a stronger field. (The Higgs bosun being so far imaginary.) So, that makes Sol a very magnetic star under that gas. The Oort shell is what a shrunken planetary nebula looks like. Our missing partner? Promixa the suspected former magnetar.